I wrote, re: Doug Grow's recent column:
> > But in my experience, 99 percent of things you think are
> > journalistic conspiracies are really the result of
> > cluelessness, incompetence, or sloth.
Aaron wrote:
> Most news people I know couldn't conspire their way out of a wet paper
bag.
> And I don't think Doug Grow is clueless, incompetent, or slothful.
For the record, I think I made it clear in my original post that Doug's
column was fair and not any of these things.
I think Aaron is right that the PR industry, whether we like it or not
(or admit it to ourselves or not), influences journalists. Is PR always
evil? No (perhaps Aaron disagrees). But does it warp our read of the
body politic and the civic sphere? Certainly. How is the necessary
question, to evaluate effects. And I do want to keep us focused on local
media & effects.
Aaron does bring it around to Minneapolis:
> That brings me around to the term "activists," which Doug Grow used to
> describe list participants. I don't have supporting documentation on
this,
> but it strikes me that the term "activist" as used in the Star Tribune
has a
> certain sullied quality to it. Like Freeman Wicklund is an "activist"
and
> the Highway 55 protesters were "activists." Our new mayor was even
labeled
> an activist by the Star Tribune. The connotation is that activists are
> somehow outsiders and disruptive.
This is true! The question is, should we be offended? Clearly, I am an
activist, since I'm up to my eyeballs in civic activities. The term
"activist" kinda naturally follows - in other words, it seems factual -
so why should we be offended? Aaron provides the answer, though: it
becomes synonymous with "extreme" or "special-interest."
Aaron continues:
> Don't think there's anything to it? Then tell me if Red McCombs has
ever
> been labeled a "stadium activist." He's politically active isn't he?
This is a great example! You're right! No one is an "activist" if
they're acting in a business context - they are business people. I'd be
tempted to say, then, that "activist" applies to those who work on
causes full time, but most of us have other jobs (in the business world,
even!) Because we're volunteers? No; I know plenty of activists who are
paid, in some capacity, so that's not it. Could it be that activists act
for something broader than their self-interest - perhaps that's
insulting to business people, but certainly ennobling the word, at least
in my world...
Since I am a local journalist and only cover local issues, I want some
guidance from the forum ("activists" and non-):
1. Is activist, as used to describe someone involved in Minneapolis
issues, an acceptable term or has it become corrupted by connotation?
2. Should it be applied more broadly, or differently, when speaking of
the Minneapolis civic sphere?
Thanks, Aaron - this is good food for thought. Specifics (and local
specifics) are appreciated.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
